Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 14
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
αὐτῶν ] should be deleted, with Lachm. Rück. Tisch., according to preponderating testimony. A defining addition.—1Co_14:13. Instead of διόπερ read διό , upon decisive evidence.—1Co_14:15. δέ ] is wanting both times in F G, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Syr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers; the first time also in K, the second time also in B; hence Lachm. deletes only the second δέ . Probably Paul did not write either at all, and B contains merely the insertion which was first made in the first half of the verse.—1Co_14:18. Elz. has μου after Θεῶ , which Reiche defends, in opposition to decisive evidence. Addition from 1Co_1:4; Rom_1:8, al. There is preponderating testimony for γλώσσῃ (Lachm. Rück. Tisch.) in place of γλώσσαις , as, indeed, in this chapter generally the authorities vary greatly in respect of the singular and plural designation of this charisma. In this passage the plural was inserted because they ascribed the knowledge of ever so many languages to the apostl.
λαλῶν ] B D E F G à , 17, 67** Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. Oec. and Latin Fathers have λαλῶ (so Lachm. and Tisch.); of these, however, F G, Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have ὅτι before πάντων . L omits λαλῶν altogether (which Rück. prefers, as also D. Schulz and de Wette). The preponderance of attestation is manifestly in favour of λαλῶ , which is also to be regarded as the original. For the omission (A) is explained by the fact that the words from εὐχαριστῶ to γλώσσαις were viewed (in accordance with 1Co_14:14-16) as belonging to each other. Other transcribers, who rightly saw in πάντων ὑμῶν κ . τ . λ . the ground of the εὐχαριστῶ , sought to help the construction, some of them by ὅτι , some by changing λαλῶ into λαλῶν . The latter was welcome also to those who saw in πάντων … λαλῶν , not the ground, but the mode of the εὐχαριστῶ , such as Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 271, who accordingly defends the Recepta.—1Co_14:19. Elz. Tisch. read διὰ τοῦ νοός , running counter, it is true, to A B D E F G à , vss. and Fathers, which have τῷ νοΐ (so Lachm. and Rück.), but still to be defended, because τῷ νοΐ has manifestly come in from 1Co_14:15. The very old transcriber’s error διὰ τὸν νόμον (without μου ), which Marcion followed, tells likewise on the side of the Recepta.—1Co_14:21. ἑτέροις ] Lachm. Rück. read ἑτέρων , following A B à , min. Rightly; the dative was written mechanically after ἑτερογλώσσοις and χείλεσιν .—1Co_14:25. Elz. has καὶ οὕτω before τὰ κρυπτά , in opposition to greatly preponderating evidence. The result seemed to begin at this point, hence the subsequent καὶ οὕτω was taken in here and the οὕτω following was left out (so still Chrysostom). Afterwards this second οὕτω was restored again without deleting the first καὶ οὕτω .—1Co_14:32. πνεύματα ] D E F G and some min. vss. and Fathers have πνεῦμα . But πνεύματα seemed out of place, seeing that it is the Holy Spirit that impels the prophets.—1Co_14:34. ὑμῶν , which is defended by Reiche and Tisch., is wanting in A B à , min. vss. and Fathers (deleted by Lachm. and Rück.), but was very liable to be omitted from its being non-essential, and from the generality of the precept, and is to be retained on the ground of its old (as early as Syr.) and sufficient attestatio.
ἐπιτέτραπται ] ἐπιτρέπεται has greatly preponderant authorities in its favour. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Rightly; the sense of the perfect (permissum est) came more readily to the mind of the transcribers, both of itself and because of the prevalent reference to the la.
ὑποτάσσεσθαι ] Lachm. Rück. read ὑποτασσέσθωσαν , following A B à , and some min. Copt. Bashm. Marcion, Damasc.; an interpretation.—1Co_14:35. γυναικί ] Elz. Scholz read γυναιξί , in opposition to A B à * min. and several vss. and Fathers. The plural was introduced mechanically after the foregoing.—1Co_14:37. εἰσὶν ἐντολαί ] Many various readings. Among the best attested (by A B à ** Copt. Aeth. Aug.) is ἐστὶν ἐντολή . So Lachm. But D* E* F G, codd. of It. Or. Hil. Ambrosiast. have simply ἐστίν ; and this is the original (so Tisch.), to which ἐντολή was added, sometimes before and sometimes after, by way of supplement. The Recepta εἰσὶν ἐντολαί (defended by Reiche) arose out of the plural expression ἃ γράφω in the way of a similar gloss.—1Co_14:38. ἀγνοείτω ] ἀγνοεῖται occurs in A* (apparently) D* F G à * Copt. Clar. Germ. Or. So Lachm. and Rück.; Rinck also defends it. Other vss. and Fathers have ignorabitur. But in the scriptio continua an Ω might easily be left out from ἀγνοειτΩΩστε , and then it would be all the more natural to supplement wrongly the defective ἀγνοειτ by making it ἀγνοεῖται , as it was well known that Paul is fond of a striking interchange between the active and passive of the same verb (1Co_8:2-3, 1Co_13:12). One can hardly conceive any ground for ἀγνοεῖται being changed into the imperative, especially as the imperative gives a sense which seems not to be in keeping with apostolic strictness and authority. Offence taken at this might be the very occasion of ἀγνοείτω being purposely altered into ἀγνοεῖται .
CONTENTS.—(1) Regarding the higher value of prophecy in comparison with the gift of tongues, 1Co_14:1-25. (2) Precepts regarding the application of the gifts of the Spirit in general, and of the two named in particular, 1Co_14:26-33, with an appended remark on the silence of women, 1Co_14:34-35. (3) Corroboration of the precepts given, 1Co_14:36-38, and reiteration of the main practical points, 1Co_14:39-40.